Carinthia

Nobody knows what was said and in what context. I am highly suspicious as to what was said merely on the fact that the Government interfered for their own self serving reasons. Nobody could convince me they did this out of a sense of duty to the American voters. If that were the case, they could be releasing all sorts of untold lies, especially during this past Bush/Cheney era.

Exactly! Tories back Tories, hence the true reason for the manipulative leak. To reiterate what's already been pointed out, McCain has a better chance of beating Clinton than Obama. His record is far cleaner than hers on this issue and a few others.

It was a very big deal. Both Obama and Hillary stated that they would re negotiate NAFTA if they became the President. It was reprehensible that the Canadian Government would leak remarks from an Obama campaign person to the media during the U.S. primaries, knowing full well that Ohio feels they have suffered from the fallout of NAFTA. The Canadians knew that this would sway the voters to Clinton. Obama's big mistake was that he didn't fire the guy who carried on the conversation, for perception purposes if nothing else. But then who would think that an outside nation would do something so manipulative? The reality is that neither Obama or Clinton have a hope in hell of changing the NAFTA Treaty. That was probably the gist of the conversation, just the reality of what's really possible and it was deliberately taken out of context. That's my guess. Finding the right dialogue to explain this to the voters would be rather tricky, don't you think? Seems to me he had little choice but to hope it would not have the impact that it did and he could ride it out on his existing momentum. He may not have won Ohio anyhow but what went down here is damaging to Canadian/U.S. relations and will resonate into the future regardless of who wins.

Ha, ha, amazing! As I was reading your post, a pundit I was listening to on TV said the exact same thing.

The thing about the conservatives everywhere is, they can't seem to win on the issues alone, they have to pull off dirty tricks to win.

Guess we won't know now until either Clinton or Obama win the Presidency. I would hazard a guess if it's Hillary, you will have nothing to worry about, if you are for NAFTA. If it's Obama you may have some worries. The people of Ohio were hoodwinked.

No sorry, I will continue to blame Harper. Obama clearly stated that he did not know about the interaction between the embassy and his economic advisor. I'm sure that the advisor talks to many people around the world on a daily basis and was deliberately misquoted by our fearless leader. This is manipulation so McCain doesn't have to face Obama. The memo must have only said that a meeting took place. I didn't see any written or taped proof that Obama's advisor actually said that re doing NAFTA was only rhetoric.

Easy to say after the fact that it was incorrect, the damage had been done. I think that Obama's right hand man was talking out of turn and he was probably misquoted so Obama wouldn't have given it much thought. I edited my last post and rethought the Hillary connection to Harper but they are all so sleazy that it wouldn't suprise me in the least.

I hope Canadians are paying close attention. First we have the Cadman affair and now this. :angry: If Obama does win the Presidency, he may not forget this tactic. All I can say is, Harper must have been pretty confident that this memo of sorts, would work. Guess he thinks that McCain has a better chance of beating Hillary than Obama. Why oh why can't people see the manipulation of it all? I'm sure the media was onto this but because she had accused them of bias, they chose to remain silent. Too bad!

I am still in shock over this. If Harper is playing these types of dirty games now, imagine what will be in store for us if he wins a majority in the next election.

I don't think it was insincerity as much as it was his lack of response to Canada's allegations. Either he was insincere or over confident and truly thought nothing could stop him. My guess is the latter. I was disapointed, as I liked him far better than shrill Hill but I fear he will be finished long before June.

My heart bleeds for him! Not only was Conman Black flagrantly arrogant, he loved it and was proud of his own arrogance. He wore it like a badge.

Guess that's why the Conservatives released the story that an Obama campaign person told the embassy that the NAFTA issues were just rhetoric and not to worry about it. Wonder if the those Tories feel they have more to fear from Obama than Hillary? The Clintons supported NAFTA. Of course Hillary doesn't now, at least since she's been campaigning in Ohio anyhow. Nice that the Tories have sunk Canada into resorting to "Banana Republic" behaviour whilst interfering in U.S. elections.

I guess you are not the only one to suspect that this story was to denigrate U.S. soldiers. I confess, I do not know the history of why anybody would do that here. And you are so right AW, Canadian soldiers too have things to answer for as do all soldiers from all nations. There are bad apples everywhere.

The guy who threw the toddler off the overpass will surely go to jail for a good long time, if not for life. It's a given! When someone does something reprehensible to an animal, there will always be public outcry as that's all the defense that they really have. People cry out in outrage to ensure that the perps of these crimes are brought to justice, if only to bring their faces to the eyes of the public to shame them. The same argument was discussed at length during the Michael Vick dog fighting crime. When people cry out for justice for animals, they do it because they have no real faith that these crimes will be dealt with within the framework of the justice system. They sure as hell are after the media gets a hold of it. This crime against an animal being brought to the forefront, has nothing whats so ever to do with the fact that this idiot is an Amercian soldier. Unfortunately, these cruel idiots live all over the planet.

Yes, they stayed in London right through the blitz when they could have been evacuated to northern England and Scotland as many ordinary citizens were.

Thank you, that makes perfect sense. All of us would wish to go peacefully and that's what he chose to do.

He was probably ready to come home and grab a shower anyhow. The press don't tell us all they should, when they should and tell us too much when they shouldn't. Wonder if they'll ever get it right?

I don't know if I admire Harry for wanting to go to war. It seems he wanted to go simply to experience "normal" for a short time. He has always had problems with the status quo regarding the life he was born into. He is a Royal and privileged, which affords him tickets to things that ordinary folks would be denied. As a Royal, he should have been denied the opportunity to put others at risk. Unfortunately for him, "priviliged" can work against you, it works both ways. Did they really need one more man so desparately that they would risk the lives of others and all this hullabaloo? As for Prince Andrew fighting in the Falklands, wasn't he in an air or sea battle? Who would have known what plane or boat he was on? Somewhat different than a platoon strategically located on the ground with a high profile enemy combatant leading the show. Harry threw a Royal tantrum and got his way and now the game is over. Harry is a good sort and he has done good work in Africa in contributing to bringing their plight to the forefront. I think, as he grows older and more mature, he will always do good work but it should remain in the realm of how the Royals have always traditionally conducted their humanitarian missions.

The guy is a right wing shrink. He needs to visit a left wing shrink to get his head screwed back on.

Last night during the debate on MSNBC, Hillary recounted some positives to having a woman President. As the talking heads pointed out after, can we all imagine what would happen if Obama had pointed out the positives of having a black President? They both have their own crosses to bear.

I was just thinking the other day, that perhaps her real quest is to get Bill back into the Whitehouse out of spite, as she seems to have always thought that the Rebuplicans concocted a conspiracy to impeach her husband. She appears to have had more bitterness towards them for admonishing his actions than to him for his own actions. I'm not sure if we are all harder on women politicians but I sure don't like it when a woman politician blatently acts "scorned".

If Nader gets 500 votes overall, I will be very surprised! The guy has turned into a joke.

For me, I think what did her in was that first "sit down" debate. Her demeaner was God awful. She showed outward disdain for Obama and her facial expressions were bordering on hatred and anger when she looked over at him. I'm a Canuck and only an observer, but I will say that I was sitting on the fence up until that debate. As a female, I would love nothing more than to see a female President. It wouldn't have mattered to me who her opponent was, I would not have voted for her after that. Big, big mistake to have exibited such a lack of self control with her emotions. To add to this, Obama has displayed complete control over his. Had he not done that, it would still be a toss up. It's not over yet though...who knows what will happen next Tuesday.

Streisand was good in Yentle too. Having an award for each facet of human uniqueness would be good but there may be a wee bit of a time constraint with that though. At least just covering female and male actors separately, covers all races and nationalities. Having one award for both would narrow down the entertainment value. Perhaps all other facets should create their own awards ceremony. Gee, we could have one every night then...